Hywel Williams: Last month, the town council of Pwllheli in my constituency wrote to the Secretary of State expressing concern about pensioner poverty. The reply referred to the availability of pensioner credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Is the Minister satisfied with the take-up of those benefits, and if so, will he tell the House, and Pwllheli town council, what the take-up level is?

James Purnell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is exactly why we are reforming pensions so that people will be automatically enrolled into a company pension or a personal account. That is also why it will be compulsory for employers to match employees' contributions, and why we are taking powers in the Pensions Bill to ensure that employers cannot act in the way that my hon. Friend describes. Any employer who seeks to dissuade people from joining a personal account could be fined and might have to pay back the money that people have missed out on as a result.

James Purnell: We want to provide more support for people to get back into work, and that is exactly why we are making sure that everybody can have access to pathways. However, we will also expect more in return; that will mean more people getting back into work. People do not have a right to a life on benefits if they can work. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree.

Hilary Benn: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's plans for tackling bovine TB in England. In doing so, I would like to thank the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs both for its comprehensive and thoughtful report and for allowing me additional time to respond to it, which I have now done. I am also grateful to Professor Bourne and the members of the Independent Scientific Group for their thorough scientific study.
	Bovine TB is not a new problem. For more than 70 years, successive Governments have implemented cattle controls based on surveillance, testing and the slaughter of reactors. Those have been designed to protect public health, reduce the economic impact of the disease on farmers and, more recently, to comply with our obligations under European legislation. By the mid-1970s, the incidence of TB in cattle had reached an all-time low. However, since the 1980s, disease incidence has increased again—with a significant rise following the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic—and last year, nearly 3,200 new TB incidents were recorded and 18,543 reactor cattle were slaughtered in England.
	Bovine TB is a serious problem, particularly in the south-west and the midlands. Although more than 90 per cent. of herds are TB free at any one time and some significant cattle farming areas are largely without the disease, I know from listening to farmers living with it just how difficult it is, and for those most seriously affected, I know that the economic and human consequences are simply devastating. That is why we should take the right decisions to help.
	Bovine TB is transmitted between cattle, and between cattle and badgers, but what has dominated the debate is whether badger culling could be effective in controlling the disease. The 10-year randomised badger culling trial overseen by the Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB, culled some 11,000 badgers to discover what impact it would have. The ISG's final report, published last year, concluded that reactive culling—killing badgers in areas where there had been local TB breakdowns—made the problem worse; and that proactive culling, which involves taking an area of about 100 sq km and repeatedly culling badgers over a number of years, produced only marginal benefits because although TB was reduced in that area, it increased outside of it because of the disturbance and movement of badgers.
	While scientists agree that a prolonged and effective cull over even larger areas—some 250 to 300 sq km—could reduce the incidence of bovine TB, the ISG's judgment was that the practicality and cost of delivering a cull on that scale meant that
	"badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB".
	Having listened carefully to a wide range of views from scientists, farming, veterinary and wildlife organisations, and many others, and having considered all the evidence, I have decided that although such a cull might work, it might also not work. It could end up making the disease worse if the cull was not sustained over time or delivered effectively, and public opposition, including the unwillingness of some landowners to take part, would render that more difficult. It would not be right to take that risk. Therefore, in line with the advice that I have received from the Independent Scientific Group, our policy will be not to issue any licences to farmers to cull badgers for TB control, although we remain open to the possibility of revisiting that policy under exceptional circumstances, or if new scientific evidence were to become available.
	This has been a difficult decision to take, and I know that farmers affected will be disappointed and angry. We all want the same thing—to beat this terrible disease—but I have had to reach a view about what will be effective in doing so, guided by the science and the practicality of delivering a cull. Having made a commitment to farmers and others that I would take a decision, now that it has been made, we need to put all our efforts into working together to take action that can work in all affected areas.
	I have therefore also decided to make vaccination a priority, as recommended by the Select Committee. Effective vaccines could in future provide a viable way of tackling disease in both badgers and cattle. We have invested £18 million in the past 10 years in vaccine development, which has delivered good results, including: evidence that vaccinating young calves is effective; making progress towards developing a test to distinguish between infected and vaccinated cattle; showing that injectable BCG can protect badgers; and developing oral badger vaccine baits. I now intend to increase significantly our spending on vaccines by putting in £20 million over the next three years to strengthen our chances of successfully developing them. I will also provide additional funding to set up and run a practical project to prepare for deploying vaccines in future.
	It could be some time before an oral vaccine for badgers, or a cattle vaccine, becomes available, so for now we must reduce the spread of the disease, and try to stop it becoming established in new areas. We have cattle controls in place to tackle TB, and have strengthened them in recent years with the introduction of pre-movement testing and the targeted use of the more sensitive gamma interferon test. But the action that individual farmers take, in particular to deal with the risk of importing disease into their herd, will also remain critical.
	Disease control is not just a matter for Government, notwithstanding the considerable cost. Farmers have the main interest—the burden of controls falls most heavily on them—and they must be involved in working out how we go forward. It would be possible to tighten cattle measures still further as recommended by the ISG report, but that would come at a high cost. Whether it would be worthwhile is as much, if not more, a question for the industry as it is for Government. There is a choice to be made. That is why I have decided to set up a bovine TB partnership group with the industry to develop a joint plan for tackling bovine TB. We will discuss with the industry who should be on the group and how it should work, and I want to get started as quickly as possible.
	The group will have full access to information on the TB budget and will be able to make recommendations about its use. It will be able to propose further practical steps to tackle the disease, including, for example, whether there should be tighter cattle controls. It will help to reach decisions about the injectable vaccines deployment project. It will be able to look at ways of helping farmers to manage the impact of living under disease restrictions, for example by providing incentives for biosecurity, or maximising the opportunities to market their cattle by looking again at the restrictions around red markets and encouraging the establishment of more exempt and approved finishing units. I am prepared to make additional funding available to support such initiatives if the group makes a strong case for doing so.
	The House is united in its determination to overcome bovine TB, and much as we would all wish it, there is no quick or easy way of doing so. But our best chance is to work together, and I therefore hope that the industry will respond to my proposals so that we can get on with it.

Gavin Strang: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his response to the Select Committee report. Does he accept that bovine TB is the biggest challenge facing our livestock sector? Over the past five years up to last March, it has cost the Government well over £4 million, and in addition there is the huge commercial cost and the misery and suffering resulting from herd breakdown. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about not only cattle-to-cattle spread, but herd-to-herd spread?

Roger Williams: I should like to thank the Secretary of State for giving me an early sight of his statement. I also wish to draw attention to my declaration of interests in the register, and to say that the farming business for which I have a responsibility recently underwent a tuberculin test and three cattle were found to be reactors and the results for 11 were inconclusive. That is the first time that that herd and that farm have experienced TB for more than 50 years.
	I commend the Secretary of State on one thing this afternoon: that he has come to a decision. It is difficult to know, however, whether that decision was made on the grounds of populist appeal or sound science.
	Following the Bourne report, Sir David King propounded a larger scale cull to overcome the reservations of Bourne's conclusions, but the Secretary of State has completely ignored Sir David King's views. The EFRA Committee suggested a pilot large-scale cull, possibly in the south-west, to test Sir David King's views, but the Secretary of State has also ignored its recommendations.
	The Secretary of State says that further evidence may reverse the decision on culling. Where does he see that evidence coming from, and what research has he commissioned on that? The right hon. Gentleman says he will invest more money in vaccine development, yet the Select Committee was given evidence that the limiting factor in vaccine development is time, not resources. He says that some landowners may not have supported the badger cull, but how many farmers will support the proposed bovine TB partnership group when they feel so let down and demoralised at the moment? With outbreaks of bovine TB increasing rapidly, what will the cost to the country be over the next three years? Will the Secretary of State revisit the compensation payments for pedigree and highly valuable stock?
	The situation of the farming industry and the Government is very sad, and no one would wish to cull wild animals for the sake of it. But the role of badgers as a reservoir for TB infection is unquestioned, and the Secretary of State has no answer on how to eliminate it.

David Drew: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the totality of the ISG report, rather than picking parts of it. I also thank him for ignoring the former chief scientist, because some of us have grave doubts about the part that he played and the way in which he chose to reinterpret the evidence. Can my right hon. Friend say something more about the vaccination programme? He will know that I have part of it in my constituency. As much as time and money are of the essence, surely there is a need to test the vaccines in several different places and ways so that we can find the solution—and the only solution is vaccination—as soon as possible?

Hilary Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for his words, although I must point out that I have not ignored anyone's opinions, including those of Sir David King, but considered them all extremely carefully. There is a three and a half year injectable badger vaccine field trial under way, and work is also going on to develop an oral bait. The demonstration project, which I wish to work with the new partnership group to put in place, is intended to build confidence in the industry in the potential of vaccines to help to deal with the problem.
	In the case of a cattle vaccine, which is a bit further away, the first requirement is for an effective DIVA—differentiation of infected versus vaccinated animals—test to distinguish between infected and vaccinated animals. Secondly—and this will be an issue that the House will need to address—European legislation forbids the vaccination of cattle to deal with bovine TB. If and when we get a vaccine and a satisfactory DIVA test, I would hope that the whole House would think that it would be sensible to argue the case for vaccination as a better way to deal with this disease in the medium to long term than culling, of cows or badgers—when the science shows that that could make things worse.

Geoffrey Cox: Farmers in the intensely infected area of Devonshire that I represent will regard this decision as a spineless abdication of responsibility. Why, if the considerations that the Secretary of State has taken into account are so compelling, has the Welsh Executive decided to pilot a trial of just the type that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on which I have the honour to sit, has recommended to him?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Lady has posed a series of questions, and I will answer as many as possible in the parliamentary time available. Let us avoid political point scoring for a moment and take a step back to look at the report in front of us. Surely she and her colleagues will acknowledge that—as Gallagher found in his comprehensive review of the evidence—there is a future for a sustainable biofuels industry. Indeed, just three years ago there was consensus on the issue among the Government, industry, environmentalists and, of course, her own party. It was only at the end of 2005, at a speech to the Renewable Energy Association, that her party leader, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), said:
	"Five per cent. of all fuels sold in the UK to come from biofuels is a start, but it is a minimum step: we will need to go further in the future."
	The hon. Lady must also acknowledge that the UK has been at the forefront of efforts to promote sustainability in respect of biofuels. She asked why we did not set up the review to examine indirect land use change before we introduced the RTFO. When she has time to read the Gallagher review, she will see that it says very clearly that the RTFO was established before evidence of the scale of possible indirect effects was known. Indeed, a particularly influential paper from a US economist in February changed the terms of the debate, and the evidence has changed very rapidly over the past few months. It was precisely because the scientific evidence had been changing that I asked Professor Gallagher to review the evidence—the latest evidence—and to make recommendations about the way forward.
	We now face a clear choice: either we do as the hon. Lady suggests—abandon our biofuels policy and put the RTFO on hold or, indeed, abolish it—or we amend our policy and proceed more cautiously while collecting the evidence, narrowing the range of uncertainties and putting in place the appropriate safeguards. Professor Gallagher is very clear about the responsible way forward, and the reason why he thinks we should continue with our policies is that there are such things as good biofuels. We need to encourage them and to put in place the sustainability that the hon. Lady and I both want, but we cannot risk all the investment in the sector, not only throughout the world but in our country, which might make it possible. Biofuels have the potential to produce very serious greenhouse gas emissions reductions if indirect land use change is avoided. That is the Gallagher review's overall finding, and it is one I accept.

Ruth Kelly: First, I should say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that I take my obligations to the House extremely seriously. The press speculation about the content of this statement was not always well informed and certainly did not reflect the detailed content of the report. However, I welcome the tone of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
	We do face a choice whether we should abandon the greenhouse gas savings that may come from biofuels—if not now, then potentially in the future—or whether we should scrap our commitment to biofuels and argue that Europe and the wider world should do so too. As I said, Professor Gallagher is clear about his view: we should proceed, albeit more cautiously than we had assumed we should in the past.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about food prices; the report has a chapter about the impact of biofuels on those. Professor Gallagher is clear that biofuels are not the only reason why food prices have increased in recent years. Other, more important factors include smaller harvests last year because of droughts, higher fertiliser prices, rising gross domestic products and changing diets in the far east. The Gallagher review concludes that increasing demand for biofuels contributes to rising prices for some commodities, notably oil seeds. However, it says that the price rises are rarely more than 5 per cent. for most crops. That is one of the reasons it is suggesting a more cautious approach. In some areas, there is a marked impact, particularly in the short term, on particular populations in respect of some crops and some biofuels. That is why Professor Gallagher says that we ought to identify those specific effects and take global action to try to mitigate their impact.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about sustainability criteria. We are currently negotiating such criteria in the EU context. The renewable energy directive, which should conclude later this year, will propose sustainability criteria. We want to insist that it should now also include the indirect effects of biofuels use. He also asked about second generation biofuels. One of the more surprising conclusions of the Gallagher review was that such biofuels do not always have a clear advantage over first generation biofuels, particularly when land use change is taken into account.
	First generation biofuels often produce co-products that can be used as a protein substitute for animal feed—as will happen at the Ensus plant in the north-east, for example. When such use is made of co-products, the impact on land use change can be minimised. Overall, the picture is much more complex than it sometimes appears at first sight; nevertheless, there is potential in exploring further the contribution of second generation biofuels.
	We will use the report to try to influence the debate at EU level and in the US. The hon. Gentleman asked about the contribution of the transport sector in tackling climate change. The Gallagher report says that a 10 per cent. transport renewables target could still be appropriate, provided that certain evidence emerges and that appropriate safeguards are in place. It is important, of course, that we should keep that under rigorous review and take any necessary action if evidence emerges that the target is too ambitious.

Nigel Evans: The rush to biofuels seems to have led to at least three unexpected consequences: first, higher food prices; secondly, deforestation; and thirdly, a sliver of sanity belatedly creeping into the Government. The Secretary of State knows that the 10 per cent. by 2020 target is dear to the heart of José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President. Although she is clearly doing the right thing in sending out signed copies of the report to any interested parties in the EU, she must also remember that the largest biofuels producer is France, which has just taken over the presidency of the EU. What else will she do to ensure that a sliver of sanity also breaks out in Brussels, and that it reconsiders its targets on biofuels?

Helen Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), to whom I have given notice of my point of order, visited my constituency on Friday with no prior notice. I understand that although he was quite far north in Warrington, he believed that he was in Warrington, South. Although I am cheered by the fact that Opposition Front Benchers cannot even find the constituencies they are supposed to be targeting, will you take this opportunity to remind them that they too should observe the courtesies of the House, and perhaps even buy a map?

Louise Ellman: I very much welcome the decision to have in this important Estimates debate a discussion on the Transport Committee's report on ticketing and concessionary travel on public transport. That report focuses on the new national concessionary local travel scheme for older and disabled people. It also discusses a number of other important issues, including integrated ticketing, smartcard technology and revenue protection, which includes looking at how to minimise fare dodging. All those issues are extremely important for passengers and public alike and it is extremely important that we have the opportunity today to discuss both the report and the issues raised in it.
	A great deal of attention was attracted by the inquiry. More than 40 organisations and individuals submitted written evidence and the Committee held four oral evidence sessions, questioning 24 witnesses including the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris). The Government published their response on 16 June.
	The English concessionary free bus travel scheme, benefiting up to 11 million older and disabled people at a total cost of £1 billion, is extremely welcome. We have been discussing the scheme for England. Of course that is because the schemes for Scotland and Wales have already been operating following decisions from the devolved Administrations. It is an important scheme about which there was a great deal of campaigning over a long period.
	It is important that the scheme be properly funded and that the extra £223 million allocated to local authorities by special grant this year—with more to follow next year and the year afterwards, in addition to the £31 million provided for the new passes— reimburses operators and authorities fairly. There is currently a great deal of dispute, not only about the amount of funding made available but about the way in which it is allocated. Perhaps through the review of the bus service operators grant, this matter can be addressed. It is extremely important that a scheme that is popular and welcome should be funded properly and fairly. Although the concessionary passes are Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation—ITSO—compliant smartcards, only 5 to 10 per cent. of the bus fleet will be equipped to process them by the end of 2008. Part of the reason for that appears to be the cost to the bus operators of installing the equipment to use those cards to their full. That is not a satisfactory situation. The Government must speed up this process, both to secure the best and optimum use of the card and to obtain more accurate information about who is travelling using the card. That is extremely important in relation to the revenue issues to which I have referred.

Tim Loughton: The point the hon. Lady makes rightly suggests that, as the Government have acknowledged, the number of people visiting tourist resorts, including coastal towns such as mine of Worthing, is likely to put greater pressure on bus services in those areas, leading to the costs falling disproportionately on to those areas. Does she think the formula the Government have drawn up to decide how to reimburse local authorities accurately reflects those extra pressures, particularly on tourist areas?

Louise Ellman: The important point the hon. Gentleman makes underlines the need for an evaluation of the way the scheme is working and a closer look at how the available revenues allocated to local authorities in relation to the scheme are to be disbursed. His point has been raised by a number of local authorities, and our Committee's report talks about the importance of evaluating the scheme and of a re-evaluation of how the money is allocated. The point he makes was one of the ideas that we had when we put that proposal forward.

Louise Ellman: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Discussions are needed between the transport authorities and the operators, as well as the Government. Many of the issues involve the accuracy of information on who is travelling, when they are travelling and where they are travelling. That is why it is important that the appropriate technology is installed as quickly as possible on the buses involved.
	The Committee's report also looked at the broader question of integrated ticketing, or having a single ticket to cover several legs of a journey—if not the whole journey. Here we found a great difference between rail travel and bus travel. On rail, because of the Government's actions in ensuring that provision was made through the franchises, arrangements ensure through ticketing on the national network, and that is of great importance to passengers. However, wider concerns remain about the wider issue of ticketing, including the availability of tickets.
	Closure or minimal staffing of ticket offices may force passengers to use the internet or ticket machines when they do not want to. Indeed, some tickets are available only on specific websites and machines do not operate for all ticket types. It is important that all passengers have access to all tickets and can get the best deal when they travel by train.
	Since the report was completed, announcements have been made that fares, and the tickets that go with them, are to be simplified. It will be important to look at that in more detail. Simplification of the fare structure is to be welcomed, but concerns have been raised about whether the simplification will mask large price rises. That is a matter that we will need to look at in the future.
	The situation with integrated ticketing on buses is highly unsatisfactory. Concerns about breaching competition law have impeded action in addressing the problem that several different tickets may be required for one journey. The Government must ensure that the new Local Transport Bill provides the means, perhaps through quality contracts, to resolve that. It is important that any measures introduced should be strong enough.
	I am pleased to see in the Government's reply to the report that they will consider a recommendation for traffic commissioners to have the power to arbitrate if local authorities and bus operators cannot agree on the pricing of multi-operation travel cards. More needs to be done on integrated ticketing on buses, and the Bill may help, but we must ensure that the problems are resolved. The Committee also noted that insufficient attention is given to travelling by coach. Many people travel by coach, yet there is little integrated ticketing and little attention is given to coach travel as a mode of transport.
	We were told in one of our Committee sessions by the director of fares and ticketing at Transport for London that tickets were introduced in 1853 to prevent bus conductors from pocketing fares. He told us that 70 per cent. of revenues used to disappear and that was why tickets were introduced. It now appears that tickets are giving way to the plastic smartcard and, indeed, to other technologies. We looked at the successful Oyster card scheme in London and at other local smartcard schemes. TFL anticipates that the Oyster pay-as-you-go system will be linked to the national rail network in London by 2010. Indeed, we received evidence from many people who told us that they wanted the Oyster scheme to be linked more widely to the national network.
	The Government should articulate a clearer strategy for integrated ticketing in general and smartcards in particular, but they must show the costs and the benefits of the high expenditure involved. Industry experts assess the costs of smartcards and rail franchises at £100 million per scheme and it costs £3,000 to equip a bus with equipment for the cards. Technology is important but the Government must show the benefits and how the cost is justified.

Tim Loughton: To go back to the subject of concessionary fares, and as the hon. Lady has been talking about trains, did her Committee consider the merits or otherwise of extending the concessionary fare scheme for pensioners to allow them to travel on trains, too? Obviously, train operators have expressed some concerns that they are losing out on some of their custom. Given her talk about integrated ticketing systems, does she think that the future for the concessionary bus fares is that they will be extended to rail services, too?

Philip Hollobone: Is it not the case that those train operating companies and bus operators that allow off-duty police constables on their services for free should be applauded for doing so? When fare evaders are caught, they can often cut up rough, and it is reassuring for passengers and revenue protection officers if off-duty police constables are encouraged to use public transport where appropriate.

Robert Goodwill: As my hon. Friend says, this debate is about scrutinising the Government. We are not arguing with the overall budget for the scheme but about its allocation—some local authorities have been allocated more money than they have used. The Government have patently failed to identify where the expenditure would be needed, and places such as coastal resorts and cities where people go shopping have borne the brunt.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the mention of Worthing. In fact, the figure for the Worthing and Adur authorities combined, which are in partnership, is something like £624,000 for the current year. When I brought the deputy leader of Worthing council, Ann Barlow, and the leader of Adur council, Neil Parkin, to see the Minister, they said that they would rather the scheme were not funded through them. Why do local authorities need to control this scheme? They are losing money that will be made up by council tax payers, or by the cutting of local services. Why can the Government not fund what is supposedly a fully funded scheme and operate it themselves, rather than operate it through local authorities, which have to pick up the bill for what is, in our case, not a fully funded scheme?

Norman Baker: This is not a debate about local income tax, but I am happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that all our tax proposals balance. I would be happy to send him details, should he wish. Our proposals are open and accountable, they have been externally audited and they balance. More to the point, they exist, which is more than can be said for the Conservatives' proposals.
	I am grateful to the Committee for its comments on the concessionary fare scheme, and I hope that it will follow them through, because this is an important area of delivery not only for people up and down the country but for the new Government policy, which needs to be examined. That is exactly the sort of thing that the Committee should be doing.
	The report is not just about concessionary fares; it also deals with other matters. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned fare evasion, which is an important issue. I support her suggestion that there should be a better independent appeals body. It is quite right that those who are seeking to avoid paying their fare should be caught and dealt with properly. It is unacceptable to the proper fare payer that others are getting free travel by seeking to avoid payment. However, people are sometimes given unjustified penalties. A constituent of mine, a young student, got on a train without having paid the fare because there was no one in the booking office. They were subsequently charged a penalty fare because they had not seen the conductor on the train to get a ticket as soon as they got on. That cannot be right, and we need to resolve issues such as those. An independent appeal body that works would be the right way forward, and I fully endorse the hon. Lady's proposal for such a body.
	One way of dealing with such problems is by gating stations. I do not pretend that that is the full answer, but I know from speaking to Transport for London that it has massively increased its fare income—by 15 to 20 per cent., I think—by putting gates on the North London line, which it has taken over from a British Rail-type body. I am not sure which of the train operating companies it was. TFL has improved its income stream markedly by gating those stations. Technology can therefore help to provide answers.
	I want also to deal with integrated ticketing, but I shall preface my remarks by saying that we need to recognise that there is a problem with the bus services that are presently provided in this country. The problem dates partly if not wholly back to deregulation in the 1980s. The statistics from the Department demonstrate that the average cost of bus fares has increased markedly above inflation in the intervening years, and particularly since this Government came to power in 1997. The average cost of bus fares has increased by 13 per cent. above inflation since 1997.
	Those who use buses are often among the poorest in society. They do not all qualify for free passes as they are often working people, and this is a significant cost for them to meet. The cost of travelling by bus has gone up by more than the cost of travelling by train and, dare I say it, by more than the cost of motoring in those years, notwithstanding recent fuel price increases.
	The cost of travelling has gone up, but the cost of subsidy has gone up as well. The subsidy to bus services in 1986 was £847 million. When this Government came in, it was largely unchanged at £881 million. By 2006, however, it had rocketed to £2,452 million. That represents a tripling of the subsidy in the 11 years of this Government, at a time when fares have been increasing at above the rate of inflation and bus passenger numbers have continued to fall. That is not a success. Between 1985 and 2006, the number of bus journeys in Scotland fell by 30 per cent., in Wales by 28 per cent. and in the non-metropolitan areas of England by 22 per cent. It is only in London that there has been any success in driving the numbers up. The subsidy per head in London is markedly higher than elsewhere in the country.

Norman Baker: To be fair to the Government, they have started to go along that track with their proposals in the Local Transport Bill. They will make it easier to bring in quality contracts and give local authorities more control over the type of bus operations in their area. We would go further than the Government are going, however, and I have tabled amendments to the Bill to try to achieve that, as the Minister knows. Collectively, however, we all have to recognise that the statistics that I have just given demonstrate a failure of bus policy over 20 years, and unless there are proposals to remedy that—such as those that we have put forward and, to some extent, those from the Government, though they are not enough—the failures, including decreasing patronage and increasing costs, will continue. That cannot be sensible.
	The report refers to integrated ticketing, which is an important issue. It is easier for people to use public transport if their tickets are integrated. They want to be able to buy just one ticket for their whole journey. Integrated ticketing also helps to avoid extra costs. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside rightly drew attention to the fact that people often have to buy multiple tickets, which drives up the cost of their journey. Even in London, someone who gets off one bus and gets on another has to pay again, until they have reached the ceiling on their Oyster card.
	The fact is that no real attempts are being made to make integrated ticketing work. Paragraph 1 on page 30 of the report states:
	"Ten years after it expressed its commitment to promoting integrated bus ticketing, the Government has achieved too little of practical value. It is a nonsense that the everyday act of changing buses is still made unnecessarily inconvenient and expensive by poor ticketing arrangements. The Government needs to pay more attention to resolving these basic problems which penalise passengers and deter others from using buses at all."
	That is absolutely right, and the Committee is right to draw our attention to that point. However, I do not see much in the Government's response to suggest that they are taking it on board or that anything is going to happen as a consequence.
	The Government talk about the voluntary schemes which are working, including plusbus. They are indeed working, and I am glad that plusbus is there, but less than a quarter of rail tickets that are sold have any sort of cross-ticketing arrangement with buses. More than 200 towns and cities outside the metropolitan areas are covered by the scheme, which is fair enough, but there are many areas that are not covered. It is not sufficient to rely on local initiatives to make up the difference. It would take a very long time to achieve that, and the Government need to be more proactive in encouraging integrated transport ticketing, between rail and bus services in particular, but also between bus operators.
	I have to tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside that we have tabled amendment after amendment to the Local Transport Bill to try to make integration part of the thought process. For example, we wanted to make it a requirement for those involved in local quality contracts to consult Network Rail and the train operating companies, but that proposal was rejected by the Government, so our proposal to help to achieve integration was actually voted down by her colleagues. I hope that she will take that up with the Minister at some point.
	Integrated ticketing will be helped by the roll-out of smartcard technologies, and I think that we are all in favour of that. We have only to look at London to see what a great success the Oyster card has been. Incidentally, I hope that we will soon reach the stage at which Oyster cards can be used on mainline suburban rail services as well as on the underground. Not all train operating companies accept them, but I hope that that can be rectified before long.
	The fact is, however, that 78 per cent. of travel concession authorities do not comply with ITSO standards. By the end of 2008, only 5 to 10 per cent. of the bus fleet will be ITSO equipped. Therefore, we have a situation in which people who are being given smartcards cannot use them because there are no facilities for them on the buses. In an answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), the Minister said:
	"We currently have no plans to require buses in England to be equipped with smart readers."—[ Official Report, 22 October 2007; Vol. 465, c. 17W.]
	That is the official Government position, but I have to ask why there are no such plans. This is the way forward for dealing with all the problems that the Transport Committee has identified, and for getting justice and ease of use for the passengers who want to use the buses.
	I want to ask the Minister a direct question, and I hope that she will answer it when she winds up the debate. How much does she estimate it would cost to put smartcard readers on all buses? I understand that the Department for Transport has made a rough estimate of the cost, but we have failed to see answers to these questions so far. She doubtless shares our vision that that system should be rolled out, so, having given us an estimate, will she tell us how she thinks that the system should be applied to buses? In her judgment, who should pay for it?

Tim Loughton: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I have been goaded—not least by the lack of mention of my constituents, particularly those in Worthing. I thought it might enlighten the House if I discussed the experiences of my local councils and my constituency. I repeat the welcome given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) and commend her Committee's report, although it was produced under the chairmanship of the late former hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
	I take issue slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who tried to claim that his constituency had the highest number of pensioners. Although not now No. 1 in the pensioner stakes, Worthing still has, proportionately, the highest number of over-85-year-olds, who form 4.6 per cent. of the population. We greatly appreciate the contribution that they make to our town. They seem to travel on buses disproportionately more than other members of the community, so our getting this issue right is of particular relevance to them.
	Although I greatly welcome the scheme and supported the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill that brought it in, there are clearly winners and losers. The Government have increased the funding to £1 billion. I am not trying to detract from the generous funding that they have made available, but whatever one thinks about the funding, the issue is whether it is going to the places it is needed most and whether it reflects the usage of buses by local populations. I have a problem in that regard.
	Worthing borough council and Adur district council, the two local authorities in my constituency, have been working in ever closer partnership. That has been greatly encouraged by the Government and it is to be applauded; it has produced many efficiency savings. However, those savings and more have gone out of the window because of the necessity of subsidising a scheme that the former Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), made absolutely clear on 28 June 2007 would be fully funded. Overall, that may be so—it is too early to tell—but in Adur and Worthing it is anything but fully funded.
	The Minister knows that full well because, in her absence over Christmas, I took a delegation to see the Minister for Local Government, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey), and I had a follow-up meeting with her later. She has had a number of detailed representations from council leaders, council officers and the two Members of Parliament representing the Adur and Worthing authorities. She is in no doubt about the problems that the scheme is causing us.
	I will cite the figures: the estimate is that there will be a shortfall of between £600,000 and £650,000, possibly in Worthing alone. In Adur district next door, the shortfall for this year has been estimated at £238,000, which is equivalent to 4.3 per cent. on the council tax. The council leader has estimated that if we did not have to subsidise this supposedly fully funded Government scheme, we virtually need not have increased council tax this year at all. All the other savings that have been made have been wiped out by the additional costs of the scheme, which have fallen on Adur council tax payers; the scheme has not been fully funded as the Government had claimed.
	There are winners and losers among the 324 authorities that are operating the scheme. There are particular losers among authorities that include resorts, particularly seaside resorts, that rightly attract people on day trips or short-stay holidays. That is why Sussex, which has a number of seaside resorts, has been disproportionately hit. I repeat that the scheme is good, but it has already become subject to the law of unintended consequences, and that is having a detrimental financial effect on my councils and therefore my council tax payers. Sarah Gobey, the assistant director of financial services at Worthing council, has provided me with a brief. She writes that Worthing borough council
	"is extremely disappointed to see that the Department for Transport is only willing to consult on proposals to distribute the grant on a formula basis. At this early stage in the scheme it is almost impossible to derive a formula which will match the pattern of actual costs—the empirical information is simply not there."
	I should remind the House that the Government adopted a reimbursement formula based on a combination of eligible population, bus passenger journeys, overnight visitors and retail floor space—a very difficult calculation to make.
	Sarah Gobey went on:
	"This Council would prefer to see the grant paid to reimburse the actual additional costs experienced at a local level. This would ensure that there are no 'gainers' or 'losers' in the new system. The preliminary forecast received from the Council's consultants would indicate that whilst Worthing will be a 'loser' under the proposed arrangements, other Councils within West Sussex would appear to 'gain'. We fail to see how this can be justified, yet the Department for Transport refuses to see why using a formula to distribute the funding is flawed. The Government has told local government that there is sufficient funding available for the new scheme, consequently there is absolutely no rationale in allocating grant on any other basis than actual expenditure."
	The situation, however, is actually worse than that.
	For the past few years, again to their credit, the Government have been operating a free local bus pass scheme, but its operation and funding have been to the detriment of my councils. The note continues:
	"However, all of this masks another problem which is that the Council believes that the current statutory scheme is also underfunded. By 2008-09, the Council estimates that the cost of the current scheme will have increased by £860,000 since the introduction of the free bus pass. In 2006-07, the Council received additional funding of £610,000 via Revenue Support Grant. As a 'floor' Authority, this funding has barely kept pace with inflation, whilst over the same period the Council has seen costs increase by over 20 per cent. per year. Consequently, the Council estimates that the current scheme is underfunded by at least £200,000."
	On top of the additional underfunding element of the national bus pass scheme, we have been accumulating losses on the existing local scheme. So there has been an accumulation of losses over some years, to which the national bus scheme is a further addition. It is a double whammy. As Sarah Gobey concludes:
	"There is the distinct possibility of financial meltdown for Worthing Borough Council for the sake of a formula and it is particularly galling to think that all of our hard work on achieving savings from partnership working"—
	with Adur—
	"could be wiped out at a stroke."
	That briefing came from Worthing, but the same principles apply to Adur council next door, which is a slightly smaller one whose total figures are slightly lower.
	The Government announced this scheme to great acclaim and we all support it and want to see it flourish because it is good for transport, good for the environment and, most of all, good for elderly and disabled people who can travel more, but it is clearly having a very detrimental effect as certain councils, particularly mine, are suffering from a large shortfall.
	That explains why certain councils, including mine, have chosen to time their scheme so that it starts at 9.30 am rather than at 9 o'clock, as 9.30 is the latest allowable time for authorities to commence the scheme. Some neighbouring councils, which are not suffering from the same shortfall, have been able to start their scheme from 9 o'clock, so further confusion is ensuing. My local councils are, quite understandably, trying to limit the impact that the shortfall in funding is having by just about the only mechanism available, which is to start the scheme at 9.30 rather than earlier.
	Now, however, we have people travelling between local authorities whose start time is different, which is causing a good deal of confusion and no little resentment by some people who think that certain councils are pulling a fast one. Well, if anyone is pulling a fast one, it is the person who invented this funding formula, which is leading to serious underfunding for my councils, which are then quite unreasonably getting the flak for what is happening.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) said, the scheme has also been a victim of its own success, as there has been a big increase in the number of bus journeys. On the face of it, that is absolutely right, and I see many people around Worthing getting on buses, so the buses are being well used. I have to say, however, that many of the people who get on those buses do not get off them —[Interruption.] The Minister might say "Not ever", but there have been a number of cases involving people who, knowing that they can travel for free, get on the bus and travel all the way down the coast to Chichester or Lewes or perhaps on to Hastings or wherever without getting off. They go for the trip. That is terribly nice and lovely, but they do it again the following day and the one after that and the one after that. Bus drivers now have regular customers who travel on the bus for the sake of it. That may not be typical, but some people are making use of the system, travelling up and down the coast and having a lovely ride. To be honest, that is not the purpose for which the scheme was intended.
	I have another extraordinary situation in my constituency. There is a residential building of about 90 sheltered flats where a number of pensioners live. It is very well run by the local housing association. It is on a busy road just on the outskirts of Worthing. The bus going into town picks up pensioners from that building so that they can do whatever they want to do in Worthing. When they come back, however, the bus stop is on the other side of the road, but the road is so busy that many of these pensioners are too scared to cross it, so they stay on the bus, travel several more miles into the next town until the bus turns around and comes all the way back in order to deposit them on the right side of the road. That seems absurd, but it is happening. It provides another example of excessive bus journeys, which have to be accounted for by the local bus company. I am trying to address the problem by getting the local authority to put a pedestrian crossing of some description on that part of the road, which should help.  [Interruption.] The serious point I am making is that many more people than were ever anticipated are using the buses; and I have to say that it seems to be happening to a greater extent in Worthing and Adur than in other parts of the country, which exacerbates the problem of the number of journeys and the underfunding.

Rosie Winterton: I certainly agree with that. We have discussed today the need to ensure that people can navigate their way around the system using new technology. Of course, people need assistance to do that, but at the same time staff can be freed up to undertake other duties.
	The Government are committed to ensuring that ticketing choices are fair, transparent and convenient, as my hon. Friend said. Last year's White Paper, "Delivering a Sustainable Railway", set out our vision of simpler fares, modernised ticketing and information, and how best to meet the needs of disabled passengers. In April, we welcomed the announcement by train operators of the new, simplified and more transparent fares structure to be introduced next year. In May, the operators introduced standard names and conditions for advance fares, increasing the availability of railcard discounts. From September, the names of the main walk-up fares will be common across the whole network, so they will be easier for passengers, and Members of Parliament, to understand.
	The Government recognise, however, that the arrangements for bus ticketing are not so well advanced. We want integration not only on the railways, but on buses. We understand the importance of a simple and flexible integrated approach. We should remember, however, that bus operators often work in a commercial world, and are free to set their own fares and determine conditions on ticket validity.
	I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside spoke about the importance of the price promise for rail. I shall refer later to the Local Transport Bill. With the agreement of the Association of Train Operating Companies, we plan to introduce a price promise, whereby anyone who buys a train ticket in person from a ticket office and who subsequently discovers that they could have bought a cheaper ticket for the same journey will be entitled to a refund of the difference. That was a concern of the Committee.
	My hon. Friend also emphasised the importance of community transport. I absolutely agree with her. More quality partnerships, and if necessary, quality contracts are needed. In that way, it could be easier for local authorities in some instances to insist on integrated ticketing. I am sure that she needs no reminder that those on the main Opposition Front Bench have consistently voted against the changes in the Local Transport Bill— [Interruption.] I said those on the main Opposition Front Bench. It is astonishing that they have done so, because Conservative councillors have said that Opposition Front Benchers are totally out of touch with local authorities, which need the ability to work more closely with bus operators and to introduce quality contracts if that is the right approach. Conservative Members shake their heads, but I suggest that they consult more closely the councillors in their areas. If they do so, they will find that those councillors are reflecting what the public are telling us as Members of Parliament: they want better bus services. We intend to introduce those through the Local Transport Bill. I urge those on the Conservative Front Bench to take heed of that.
	Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) made an important point about gating. Of course, we need to protect revenues, and gating can be an important part of that. However, I assure my right hon. Friend that we would not expect a station operator to install gate lines outside the boundary of the station lease, or unreasonably to restrict access to a pedestrian route shared with other facilities. I am sure that, having heard my right hon. Friend's speech, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will consider the points that he made.

Richard Caborn: The Select Committee report called for a more holistic policy on gating, which may involve economic regeneration and other factors. "Holistic" is a lovely word which encompasses everything, and I am therefore hopeful of a solution to the particular problem that I am experiencing in Sheffield.

Rosie Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, there are clear mechanisms for local authorities to submit returns about their visitor numbers and available retail space. It is not for the Department to tell Worthing how many overnight visitors it has; it is for Worthing to tell the Department. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would have known that.
	Of course we believe that bus operators are entitled to reimbursement for carrying concessionary travellers, but local authorities should provide it on a "no better off, no worse off" basis: operators should neither gain nor lose money as a result of carrying concessionary travellers. That is laid down in legislation. It is important for authorities to reach agreement with operators on how they should be reimbursed in relation to the numbers carried.

Rosie Winterton: At this stage, we are commissioning research to look at some of the issues. I reiterate; it is not easy to come up with brand new formulae that could in some circumstances upset arrangements reached with bus operators. There is an appeals process, which I will come to later.

Rosie Winterton: As my hon. Friend knows, there are some areas where it is clear that bus operators and local authorities are working closely together and are producing a good service for passengers. However, it is also true that does not happen in other areas, which is why we are making some of the changes in the Local Transport Bill and which, as I pointed out, the main Opposition party does not support.
	The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby asked about cross-border travel. There is nothing I can add to what I have said previously in the House, which is that we want the scheme to settle down within England before we look at what could be an immense financial commitment in extending it to Scotland and Wales. If the hon. Gentleman is committing his party to that, I suggest that he costs it very carefully and looks at some of the technical issues that surround it. However, that does not prevent individual local authorities on the border coming to agreements with authorities on the other side.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about funding. The Government are certain that a generous settlement was made; the increase in his local authority was 58 per cent. on what was spent previously on concessionary travel. He also asked whether the £4.50 grant would be repeated. We felt that it was right to pay local authorities for the initial issue of smartcards to make the changes. We covered the full cost of that issue but it is not unreasonable to ask local authorities to cover the cost of renewal.
	The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) is not in his place so I will not answer his points.
	The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) talked about putting smartcard readers on all buses. He raises an important point. We felt that it was important, given the change in terms of the national concessionary scheme, to say, "Let us have a system that can be interoperable." That is why we designed the ITSO smartcard approach. Readers are not yet available on all buses, but there are different ways of looking at that issue and it is important that we do so. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are looking at BSOG, the bus service operators grant, to see where there are incentives. Quality contracts and quality partnerships could well be ways to make it easier to introduce smartcards. He raises an important point, but if we had not got a system that could be smartcard-compliant everywhere, it would have been a missed opportunity. He also raised the issue of penalty fare appeals. In the response to the Select Committee, we said that we would look at the penalty fares rules of 2002.
	I think that I have addressed most of the points made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, particularly in terms of the increase in funds available. I am glad that he is campaigning for the pedestrian crossing that he has now decided is the answer to the problems. I am very glad that he is not asking me to install it.

Phil Willis: I refuse to respond to such comments from a sedentary position. It is right to say that maintaining blue-sky research is crucial for this nation's future in terms of wealth and of health. All Committee members are conscious of the fact that we have to keep the Government's nose to the grindstone in terms of producing the resources for basic research, and I think that this report does that. It is up to other parties to match that commitment—that might be a comment the Minister wanted to hear.
	To return to my speech, unfortunately we could draw few other positive conclusions from our investigations. Indeed, the way both the Government and the STFC handled the budget process was, to put it mildly, deeply flawed. Disappointingly, rather than engage with the criticisms, the Government have rejected almost all of the conclusions and recommendations that followed. I know that other Members will wish to return to them, but I want to focus initially on the STFC.
	The inquiry uncovered profound problems within the STFC—weaknesses in its senior management structure and leadership and in its peer review and consultation processes. To be fair to the STFC, however, it has taken some positive steps following our critique. In co-ordination with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, it has commissioned an independent organisational review following our criticism of its senior management. We look forward to seeing the conclusions of the review and what positive changes will follow. The STFC also consulted extensively within its community prior to last week's publication of its "roots and branches" reprioritisation of the entire council programme.
	Broadly speaking, the views of the peer review panels and the funding decisions taken by the STFC are now closely aligned, and we must question why that was not the case in the first place, because it would have saved much anxiety within the community.

Phil Willis: I hear what my hon. Friend says. It is the job of a Select Committee to examine carefully the evidence that is put before it, to make clear recommendations, and to expect both the Government and any organisation that is criticised to put matters to rights. A systematic review is taking place, agreed between the DIUS and the STFC's leadership and its chief executive. I am content to wait until that review has been completed and the Government have responded, so we can see whether the community—which has without doubt been damaged—can have its confidence restored. It is easy to call for people to resign: it is far more difficult to resolve the problems within an organisation. I hope that my hon. Friend will be content with that response.
	In addition to the review, the STFC has appointed a communications director from outside the organisation, which is something that our report recommended. There were a number of areas of particular concern that were brought to our attention and which we highlighted in our report. The first concerned the future of the Daresbury laboratory. It appeared to us—and it was confirmed when we visited Daresbury—that the campus was being prepared as a technology business park rather than a world class science centre. Other hon. Members will wish to add their impressions of the visit, but we are encouraged that the STFC has announced that key research activities, such as ALICE— accelerators and lasers in combined experiments—and EMMA, or the electron model with many applications, will continue at Daresbury. Although the STFC has always said publicly that it is committed to Daresbury, the decisions to retain ALICE and EMMA, and the acknowledgement that it will take some time to rebuild the science capacity there, are welcome both in terms of Daresbury's future and as a vindication of the serious concerns that we raised in our report.
	The astronomy technology centre in Edinburgh was a second area of serious concern for the Committee. Here the future is less clear. The STFC wanted to close the centre, but has now opened negotiations with the university of Edinburgh to take it on. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that those negotiations have his blessing and are likely to come to fruition. I also hope that the Scottish Parliament is being encouraged to play a key part in ensuring that we retain that world class facility.
	I am pleased that our report has also led to other movement. For example, e-MERLIN—which will increase the sensitivity of the existing MERLIN radio telescopes by a factor of 30—is central to the future of an operational Jodrell Bank and, according to one of STFC's peer review panels,
	"is guaranteed to lead to major discoveries".
	One wonders therefore why it was under threat of having its grant removed. Fortunately, it will now receive some money from the STFC, but the STFC is looking for other partners to share the cost. The programmatic review announced last week resolved to find a way to bring other partners on board to ensure the medium-term future of the programme, but Jodrell Bank is interested in its long-term future, and I hope that the Minister will be able to make some comment about that.
	A fourth area of concern was solar-terrestrial physics, which appeared on the brink of extinction following the first round of STFC announcements. The only ground-based STP to receive continued support in the near term is the European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association programme—EISCAT—which is an international research organisation operating three incoherent scatter radar systems in northern Scandinavia. It will receive that support only because the UK is legally bound to a multi-year contract.
	The STFC has declared that it will cease payments to EISCAT in 2011, but EISCAT membership is on a five-year rolling contract. It is now 2008, and it appears that we are tied in until at least 2013, not 2011. The STFC has decided that it wants to leave, but it has not even discussed this with the director of EISCAT or given any formal notice of withdrawal. It is that lack of communication and shoddy handling of key facts that has landed the STFC in real trouble over its future plans. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position on EISCAT this evening.
	It is that same lack of communication that appears to be at the heart of the STFC's budget problems. Its inability to communicate properly with its own community will, I hope, be put right in the future. In redressing the balance, the STFC clearly has some difficult times ahead, but the fact that it has listened—albeit belatedly—not only to the Committee, but to its community, is a positive step. We welcome the STFC's willingness to address our criticisms constructively. The fact that it will spend almost £2 billion over the next three years on what is a hugely exciting programme is something that we should now support, instead of raking over old coals. Of course, there have been some losers in the funding round, but there have also been some big winners.
	Let me now turn to the ability of the Government and Minister to engage with what I always hope will be positive criticism from the Select Committee. The Minister will accept that many members of the Committee are deeply committed to science and do not make criticisms purely for the sake of it. The Government rejected the bulk of our conclusions and recommendations, and we acknowledge that they have every right to do so, but they do not have the right to traduce what the Committee said or to produce a response that was impolite, inaccurate and, at times, incomprehensible. That is unacceptable and should be challenged.
	The Government were hasty in rejecting our recommendations regarding the transparency of the allocations process, and in particular our suggestion that documents prepared for bilateral negotiations between the Government and the research councils should be published as a matter of course, which goes to the heart of the issue of transparency and communications with the community. The Government rejected the recommendations on two grounds. First, they claimed that some information is commercially confidential—I can understand that—and, secondly, that transparency would put at risk "candid discussion and robust appraisal" during the allocation process.
	The Minister must recognise that those are not sensible rebuttals. Commercial sensitivity did not prevent the release of most of the information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and, if that is an issue, DIUS should be able to release the documents as a matter of course, with steps taken to remove commercially confidential information prior to release. The second concern, that transparency would put candid discussion at risk, simply does not hold. We have not asked to see transcripts of the negotiations, because that would be preposterous, but we have asked for the documents relating to the negotiations so that we can see on what basis the decisions are being made.
	Keeping the negotiations confidential opens the Government up to accusations that they have inappropriately influenced the decisions that research councils take. That is the most damaging accusation for the relationship between the Government, the research councils and the research community. Accusations that the Government have broken the Haldane principle are already coming from organisations such as CaSE, the Campaign for Science and Engineering, and when such strong organisations make complaints, people sit up and listen, and so should the Government. They cannot simply dismiss those accusations. Will the Minister consider our recommendation that the documents that are prepared by research councils for use in bilaterals with DIUS are published as a matter of course?

Phil Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that he will make those points again. That was the very point that I was trying to make—obviously, not as well as I should have.
	We welcome the fact that the CSR period will be characterised by an increased emphasis on translational research into health and wealth benefits. Three new bodies have been set up recently for that purpose: the Office for Strategic Co-ordination of Health Research, or OSCHR; the Energy Technologies Institute; and the Technology Strategy Board. It is clear from our report and the Government's response that those new bodies—welcome as they are—are partially supported by reallocated money that previously supported basic science, which I think was the point that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) alluded to earlier.
	The Government defend the movement of funds in paragraph 43 of their response by saying:
	"It is the role of Government to encourage the research base regularly to assess and adjust funding to take into account shifting priorities."
	They go on to say:
	"It would not be appropriate to adopt an approach that only funded new initiatives after all existing activity is maintained."
	Those statements run contrary to previous assurances that the Government have given to us that basic science will never be cut in favour of translation. Can the Minister reassure us that the increased emphasis on translational science will not have a detrimental effect on basic science—the kind of science that is not on the fast-track to translation, but will instead enhance humanity's knowledge base in the long-term?
	The key issue of the Government's approach to the Haldane principle emerged during our discussions on regional policy. I am sure my colleagues will speak later, so I shall be brief. In short, the Government appear hopelessly confused on regional policy. They have repeatedly stated that they want
	"to strengthen science investment at Daresbury".
	That desire has led the Government to have a specific vision for the STFC to fund science at Daresbury. Whether or not that is a breach of the Haldane principle, it is a clear breach of Government policy, which is:
	"Public funding of research at a national level, through the Research Councils and funding bodies, is dedicated to supporting excellent research, irrespective of its UK location."
	That is a direct quotation from the "Science and innovation investment framework, 2004-2014".
	Surely, if the Government follows their own guidelines and the Haldane principle, they should not be putting pressure on research councils to invest money in any specific location, as they have done by repeatedly voicing a desire to see world-class science facilities at Daresbury and by outlining their specific vision for the Daresbury Campus to be a partnership between the STFC and others. That is for the research councils to decide on the basis of the science, but the Government are clearly and rightly determined that Daresbury should have a bright future.
	I understand that there is a problem for the Minister: either the Government have a regional science policy or they are reaching for one. Either way, they should make their position clear. Will the Minister reconsider our recommendation to open a debate on regional science policy by producing a White Paper on the subject? He cannot still simply allow the confusion to go on between centrally driven national policy, in terms of the Haldane principle and excellence, and regional policies.
	Finally, at the heart of the problems over the STFC's budget is the financial legacy that the STFC was left with following the merger of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, or PPARC, and the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, or CCLRC. The Government have repeatedly denied that the origins of the STFC's budget shortfall have anything to do with an inherited deficit from CCLRC by pointing out that the STFC was formed without a budget deficit. That is absolutely true, and the Committee has no wish to reopen that argument. However, the Government have consistently missed the point. As Professor Keith Mason, the former chief executive of PPARC and current chief executive of the STFC, so correctly put it:
	"the base line budget allocation to the ex-CCLRC...was not fully raised to compensate for the running costs of Diamond and ISIS Target Station II".
	That was the point.
	Let us consider the facts. CCLRC would have had a budget deficit of approximately £80 million, in today's money, had it continued as a stand-alone council, because its baseline allocation was not sufficient to meet the running costs associated with Diamond and the ISIS second target station coming online. That is shown in the National Audit Office report, "Big Science", from January 2007—it is not something that we made up. The STFC was given approximately the combined budget of CCLRC and PPARC and the STFC's budgetary shortfall is almost exactly the same size as the amount that CCLRC would have been short of had it been able to continue as a stand-alone council. Those facts cannot be dismissed on the grounds that CCLRC should have planned its budgets more carefully on the basis of a flat cash settlement. That might be true, but it is unfair to saddle former PPARC users with a deficit derived from CCLRC. That is exactly what happened as a result of the budget settlement.
	The Government assured us that there would be no legacy issues associated with the merger. They got it wrong and they should take responsibility for that, rather than hiding behind other people's decisions. Although we know the outcome of the programmatic review, we still do not know what the grant allocations will look like. Will the Minister consider a modest STFC uplift to prevent significant grant cuts if Professor Bill Wakeham recommends that when he reports in the autumn?
	The process has been interesting and has raised some fundamental issues about the Haldane principles and the independence of the research councils. It has also raised some very interesting issues about how individual research councils work. At the end of the day, the major problems have not transpired to be as serious as was first thought. I am grateful for that. I hope that when the Minister replies he is able to give not only the community in the STFC but the whole research community the commitment that the Government will seriously consider the recommendations of the Committee, rethink some of them and bring forward new proposals.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I, too, am glad to be able to participate in the debate. It is perhaps rare for Select Committee business and constituency business to collide in quite the way they did for me on the matter of science funding. Since becoming an MP, I have spent a considerable amount of time establishing a relationship with the science community in Durham. That community is reflected in our excellent world-class university, our science learning centre and Framwellgate school, which is to be rebuilt as a science village.
	I have also wholeheartedly supported the prominence that the Government have given to science, and the recognised and often cited need for us to maintain and enhance the science budget given the many years of Tory neglect. Indeed, the uplift in the budget was needed to keep us internationally competitive in an increasingly global economy.
	The 2007 comprehensive spending review was flagged up in advance as a very difficult spending round, and so it proved, but I am particularly glad that science funding was protected. As I think the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) mentioned, science funding has doubled in real terms since 1997, having gone from £1.3 billion then to £3.4 billion in 2007-08. The CSR 2007 allocation made provision for a further rise of £4 billion between 2008 and 2011. That is an average increase of 2.7 per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years. I was consoled by the fact that, despite a difficult spending review, science appeared to be protected, and the Government were continuing to support world-class research and sought to drive up the economic benefit that could be derived from investing in science.
	As the Committee's report points out, the headline figure is a three-year increase in the science budget of 17.4 per cent. As I have said, that reflects a Government commitment to implement the main recommendations of the Cooksey review on health research funding and the Sainsbury review on the role that science and innovation can play in keeping the UK competitive. It is of course true that not all research councils will receive the same percentage of uplift in their budget. As was mentioned, the Medical Research Council will receive a 30 per cent. increase. Nevertheless, overall, even the Science and Technology Facilities Council budget had a planned increase of 13.6 per cent. I will talk a bit more about that percentage later.
	I therefore felt some consternation and confusion when I started to receive frantic telephone calls from members of the physics community in Durham about the dreadful cuts that would be inflicted on them after April. That appeared to relate to budget cuts that were to be introduced by the STFC and that would affect not only their projects, but programmes supporting students. Something seemed to be going dreadfully wrong, and I had already made up my mind that the matter needed investigation, but news of the impending disastrous cuts had also reached the Science and Technology Committee, and it took the view that we should look into the STFC issues as part of the wider inquiry on science budget allocations.
	As I am sure that other hon. Members will point out, the inquiry threw up a number of worrying conclusions about the conduct of senior staff at the STFC, the difficulties with the prioritisation process for key awards, the clarity and transparency in decision making, and the issue of whether the whole fiasco and the concern over funding could have been avoided if there had been a slightly better settlement for STFC when it was established and took over from the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.
	Despite the depth of the inquiry, we still have not got to the bottom of the extent to which the issue arose from the initial funding problems of STFC, as the Government response was inadequate in that respect. They simply refute allegations made by the Committee, instead of establishing detailed evidence about the funding of CCLRC and PPARC when they were disbanded, and when STFC took over from them. Paragraph 39 of the Committee's report makes that very clear and asks the Government to look into the legacy issues in detail. However, all that the Government do in their response is make it clear that they provided an extra £185 million in excess of the flat cash settlement over the CSR period. We all know that that additional money, welcome though it was, was to fund specific projects and priorities that had already been planned. There is a lack of detail, and I hope and suspect that the Committee will return to the issue, as we need to get to the bottom of the funding allocation and the extent to which it meant that significant programmes would have to be cut.
	In the Government response, there is a lack of recognition of what it will mean for the STFC when the full economic costs come on board; that will, of course, reduce the distance that research grants can cover. When Professor Mason, the chief executive of the STFC, first appeared before the Committee, it seemed to me that the funding had not been received for all the STFC's commitments. That problem was compounded by a prioritisation of the programmes identified by the STFC; in particular, new areas for growth had been identified. That prioritisation, with subsequent cuts to other parts of the STFC, was the root of the problem and appeared significantly to upset the science community. I know that from my experience in Durham, from a lot of the evidence that the Committee received in its visits, and from witnesses who came before it. The new prioritisation programmes seemed to come from absolutely nowhere, and there had been no real consultation with those likely to be affected.
	The relationship between the STFC management and at least one key sector of the physics community seemed very weak, and led to a lot of distrust on the part of the academics involved. In particular, there was a view that disproportionate cuts were being made to particle physics. Conclusion 10, which relates to paragraph 46 of the report, summarises that well:
	"We welcome STFC's decision to support its major facilities to the extent set out in its Delivery Plan...However, we are concerned that the decision to support the large facilities has come at the expense of research in fields where the UK excels".
	Two examples are given: the international linear collider and the Gemini telescopes. Scientists in Durham and elsewhere who are involved in ILC-related work maintain that they were not consulted at all about the STFC decision, and it is the lack of transparency and the poor peer review in setting the priorities for the STFC that the Committee wishes to investigate. Of course, the issue has to some extent been overtaken by last week's report from the STFC on the new priorities. Nevertheless, that was a key issue that the Committee investigated, and some of the Government response was perhaps a little weak.
	It was apparent that many people did not think that the peer review panel, which was set up to inform the delivery plan, was fully representative of the appropriate scientific community. Confidence in peer review is essential if decisions by research councils are to be seen as legitimate by the relevant academic community. I hope that the STFC has learned from its actions and will do as it has promised and bring on board all members of the academic community who are involved in ensuring that that community has a greater say in the decisions taken.
	It is clear from the Government's response to the report that peer review is not considered a matter for the Government to get involved in directly because of the Haldane principles. I think that we would all agree that it is not appropriate for the Government to get involved in the day-to-day operation of research councils, or even in prioritisation, but it would have been appropriate for the Government to state that the efficacy of the peer review system and processes at the STFC could be improved in light of the very heavy criticism that we unearthed.

Ian Gibson: Yes, it is a competitive market, but who makes the competition? I do not feel that scientists—at least not the ones I know—have ever been competing with each other. We compete with each other over who gets their paper in  Nature or in the journal of this or that institute. However, the quality of the paper that someone publishes is important, too, and not just to their kudos, but to the world in general, because it is more read.
	One point that the hon. Gentleman did not make is that papers now do not have just one or names on them. All the best papers have about 20, 30 or 40 names on them of people who have interacted in different ways in that subject—one can look in  Nature to see that. There are very few lone wolves these days. We have moved on from the days of the magic amateur monk who discovered breeding problems in peas. Science is big now and it needs money. We no longer have rich Darwins who can sail round the world, make wonderful observations in that amateurish way and take a long time to publish their work. Things are not like that anymore. After all, Darwin published only because Alfred Russel Wallace was breathing down his neck and was going to publish anyway, so he had to beat him to the punch. The world is different now, but there is still a bit of amateurishness in our science. We tend to think that we are very clever, but competition and, even more so, co-operation are very important.
	Let me finish by saying something about the regional development agencies, of which there has been some criticism. The ones of which I have experience—in the north-west and north-east—are magic. The way they have interacted with the universities and the community is great. The situation is very different in the east of England, where we have had our moment in the sun. I wanted to make Norwich into a science city, which would not cost a penny—indeed, that is mentioned in the report that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) talked about.
	There is a cluster of really good centres of excellence around Norwich. It is the same in Dundee, Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester and Durham. We can go all round the country and see places known as science cities. Some people think that "science city" is just something that is put up on a sign at the entrance to a city, but it is not. It is a concept involving people working together in industry and science, and in centres in which young people learn about science. It also involves schools that are scientifically erudite in the sense that they have special status. There are schools that specialise in engineering, for example.
	In the Select Committee on which I serve, I remember asking a representative of the Royal Academy how many special schools did engineering. The answer was, "I don't know." I would have thought that that would be one of the first things that a member of the Royal Academy would want to know. Surely they would want to know whether there were enough schools of that kind and whether we were encouraging enough young people to go into that field. Surely they should be asking what the Royal Academy should be doing to make that happen.
	We need the science city concept, and regional development agencies that do not just play the game of co-operating but actually do so. We must also ensure that we do not have any more instances of science centres closing. There are 20 per cent. cuts being made in Glasgow, for example, by a nationalist party that works on the basis of its supreme excellence in everything—because things happen differently in Scotland—yet it is closing science centres. We have a real battle on our hands right across the board. I believe that the science budget should have been quadrupled and, by gosh, as long as some of us are still breathing, it will be.

Bob Spink: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). As always, he has made a vigorous and superbly informed contribution. He has redefined the term "wide-ranging" tonight, speaking on everything from honey bees to stem cell research. I shall try to top that by slipping in something about nuclear fusion, which he missed out. However, he has forgotten more about science than most of us ever knew, apart from one or two honourable exceptions in the Chamber tonight.
	It is easiest, and most usual, to sanction certain sanitised and unexciting research and science projects, particularly in translational research, where outcomes are predictable. Of course that is important, but it must not be done at the expense of basic science and true discovery processes. Only by taking real risks will we push forward the frontiers of knowledge for the ultimate benefit of mankind, to help us eventually to save the planet. However, the universities and funding councils have become risk averse from years of battering by the sensationalist media and from interfering politicians, although there are none of those in the Chamber tonight. They have also come under pressure from commercial organisations, which are skewing their decisions on research projects. That is why I want to speak briefly tonight in favour of basic science and research, which, by definition, involves great risk, uncertainty and unexpected outcomes.
	The system of peer review, which has already been mentioned, has been examined by the Select Committee on a number of occasions. It has serious weaknesses, in that it fails to reject mediocre and poor research projects, and favours predictable journeyman-type work that is unlikely to deliver spectacular results or push forward the boundaries of our understanding for the benefit of mankind. Peer review acts as a gatekeeper at the start and the end of the research process. At the start, it determines which projects will get funding to go ahead in the first place. At the end, it determines which ones will get published in which academic peer review journals, which is important to the whole process and to spreading that knowledge.
	Peer review is instrumental in the whole project selection process, and it is therefore of great importance. However, it tends to back the safer bets and to reject the more imaginative, ambitious and, some might say, off-the-wall projects—the kind that the hon. Member for Norwich, North and I enjoy. But at the very worst, those projects will excite, encourage and inspire future generations of scientists, and who knows what might flow from them in the future? Such projects also enable us to encourage doctoral researchers to this country and to keep them here. They add so much to the UK's research base, and we need to continue to do that.

Bob Spink: I do not think that enough is spent on them. We need to support more doctoral researchers in our universities—particularly UK-bred doctoral researchers, because they will mature, become the wealth generators and knowledge creators of the future and help to push forward medical science, which the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about. That is why I back the fund from the Royal Society, Britain's national academy of sciences, for the blue-skies research that gets around the peer review constraints to some extent.
	We must continue the red-blooded backing of big science projects such as Diamond, the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, and the large hadron collider at Cern, which is extremely exciting. As I said in an intervention earlier, it may deliver even more for mankind if it disproves the existence of the Higgs boson rather than proves it, but we will see about that over the next few exciting months. On nuclear fusion, if we ever get Q factors up to the 35 or 40 level, we will take the greatest step ever in mankind's history—by saving the planet and moving forward.
	I hope that the Minister will give comfort to the House by saying that he and the Government are truly sold on supporting big science, and on continuing to do what they have done—magnificently—over the past 10 years with science, which is to put their money where their mouth is. I back the call of the hon. Member for Norwich, North for the science budget to be quadrupled and for a significant proportion of it to go to blue-skies research.

Gavin Strang: I thank my hon. Friend for his reference to Edinburgh. He knows well its astronomy and physics capability. I strongly applaud his comments on the Haldane principle. If we go back post second world war, the key work on artificial insemination in Cambridge would probably not have been done had it been left to the Ministry of Agriculture. In fact, a research council was responsible, so we must maintain independence in relation to scientific development.

Brian Iddon: In this debate on the science budget allocations, I rejoice in the simple fact that under a Labour Government—my Government—the science budget will have doubled in real terms by the financial year 2010-11. We all visit colleges of further education, university and industry—anywhere the science base operates—and we now see some amazing things being done. I say thank goodness for that, because the future of this country relies on added value and our science and innovation.
	I believe that the two major reviews that have been mentioned, one published by the noble Lord Sainsbury and the other by Sir David Cooksey, have influenced the way in which scientists, and perhaps the Government, have been thinking about the future of science. Nor should we forget that the three national academies have received extremely good settlements. The Royal Academy of Engineering received an increase of 31.5 per cent., the British Academy received an increase of 23.7 per cent. and even the Royal Society received an increase of 18.2 per cent. Those are significant increases.
	When I was elected to Parliament in 1997, the UK science base that I left was in the doldrums. I remember that every year in my department—the department of chemistry and applied chemistry at the university of Salford—the central library sent us a list of essential journals and publications, and we had to go down the list and decide which of them we would cut out of our research budget. That happened not for one year, but for two or three. Essential posts remained unfilled. No maintenance was done. We did not have the money to replace our nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers. Large instruments across the infrastructure lay unreplaced for decades. That was no way to conduct research in Great Britain.
	When the research assessment exercise came along, science and engineering departments that carried out applied research suffered badly. Nearly all the departments that relied almost entirely on applied research are now closed—including the three great engineering departments at the university of Salford and even my old department, which was the largest chemistry department in Britain when I taught there.
	Today, the picture is quite different. The infrastructure in our universities has been improved, in my opinion, beyond recognition since 1997, with huge investments not only in buildings but in other major capital schemes. The instruments that were not bought in 1997 are all there now. There are some superb instruments in some superb departments.
	I visit the university of Manchester regularly, as I am on the external advisory body of the school of chemistry there. Every time I visit, there are cranes lifting things backwards and forwards and new buildings going up. I visit the laboratories, as I have for decades. I have never seen such state-of-the art laboratories as those I can now see by walking into any science department at that great university.
	We have pulled ourselves up to be the second in the world, behind only the United States, in the citation ratings for papers published by British scientists. Let us not forget, either, that the Labour Government came to power at a time when we had a job retaining graduates for postgraduate studies. We recognised that problem and one of the first things we did was to increase the remuneration for MSc and PhD students. That remuneration is not brilliant, but it is better than it was—in fact, it is double what it was—under the previous Government.
	The Government should be congratulated on those significant increases in the UK science research base, not only because of the research grants that they give through the science research councils but because of the major investment to which I just referred. Regrettably—I cannot understand this—the Government are instead under fire, despite all that progress. So what went wrong? Why have the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Minister for Science and Innovation been on the back foot, instead of on the front foot where they should proudly be?
	The simple explanation, in my opinion, is that the two major reviews that I have just mentioned, combined with the significant shift in research priorities to meet the needs of a modern society, have resulted in significant cuts in some research programmes. Let us not forget that other research programmes have benefited significantly. There has been a significant shift in the Medical Research Council research budget and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council research budget—a shift towards the life sciences, perhaps, and away from the physical sciences. Let us not believe that the money is not there; it is just being moved around.
	Let us consider the Haldane principle. It was established in 1919 and recommended that non-departmental specific research should be managed through research councils—that is, that decisions on expenditure should be determined by scientists rather than by politicians. Ninety years later, that principle is still in place. Our Select Committee concluded that perhaps it had been breached. In addition to full economic costs, the research councils have had other significant expenditure. The Technology Strategy Board and the Office for Strategic Co-ordination of Health Research have been mentioned, and we should also mention the Energy Technologies Institute. The creation of those three institutes alone has required a considerable shift in funding. We are talking about agreements made by scientists—people in the field—and not entirely by Ministers. However, I do not have time to go into the details.
	The seven research councils have decided to go for interdisciplinary research like never before, and our Select Committee has pressed them to do so. We have said that we are fed up with the research councils being like seven silos, with the scientists in one silo never talking to those in the other six. They are now beginning to talk to each other. Research Councils UK was established, but it did not really bring that about. I hope that the identification of seven significant areas that will benefit the public, whom we represent, has now been recognised. Some of those areas have already been mentioned.
	The question is whether the Government have breached the Haldane principle. Our report suggests that they have. The July issue of  Chemistry World was published just a few days ago, and I want to cite two articles in it by distinguished gentlemen. The first is by Randal Richards, who is no lightweight in the field of science. He recently retired as director of research and innovation at the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and latterly he was its interim chief executive. He wrote a letter to  Chemistry World, and I shall quote part of it:
	"The six cross-council research themes were identified by the research councils themselves. The fact that some of these themes coincide with public policy challenges identified by the government should not be surprising because they include some major scientific and technological changes that are world wide—sustainable energy and environmental change, for example."
	He rejects the suggestion that the EPSRC, and by extrapolation the other research councils, has failed to conform with the Haldane principle. He reminds us that the research councils were
	"pretty quick about reminding government and officials"
	when they withdrew end-of-year flexibility resources to the tune of £70 million in the last financial year.
	According to another article in the same issue of  Chemistry World, the former chief scientific adviser to the Government, Professor Sir David King himself, strongly defends the science budget in the 2007 comprehensive spending review. I shall quote just a small part of his article:
	"What we're actually talking about is the distribution and the management of the cake, not the size...The priorities of the 21st century are different from the priorities of the...20th century. Historical budgets, and the distribution of money within...research councils, shouldn't be engraved in stone."
	Sir David also suggests that scientists have not been pushed into doing what they do not want to do. He says:
	"The bottom line is, it's very difficult. Does there have to be a choice between finding the next fundamental particle by building a bigger and more expensive successor to Cern, versus putting money and the best brains into tackling environmental issues? I think that's a debate that ought to be out in the open—it's not, because people are simply defending their own...corner."

Adam Afriyie: This has been a fascinating debate. To those of us with a scientific and constituency interest in many of the projects mentioned, it has also been an enlightening and encouraging one.
	I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for his work as Chairman of the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee and for his excellent opening words. He is a champion of science and a scientific approach here in Parliament and elsewhere. Perhaps when he steps down from this House—at the next election, I understand—he might step up to the challenge of enthusing the next generation in the same way he has enthused us in Parliament. As a former member of the Committee, I miss the enthusiastic and energetic inquiry into and rational analysis of cross-departmental scientific issues that take place under his most able chairmanship. He and all members of the Committee can be rightly proud of their review of the science budget allocations and the STFC. The evidence sessions that preceded it revealed some deep concerns running through the science community. Many of those concerns were emphasised in contributions from both sides of the House, which were heartfelt, well presented, rational and thoughtful. The hon. Gentleman was eloquent and articulate in his exposition of the potential for inappropriate interference by Ministers in the allocation of budgets.
	The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) was measured in her comments. She rightly recognised the £80 million shortfall as such—a shortfall rather than a cut. She also said that there was some distance—I think that that was a euphemistic phrase—between the research budget allocations and the number of research grants.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), who was a Science Minister in the previous Conservative Government, was straightforward in his historical analysis of the events that led to the current situation. I would build on that merely by saying that the main reason why such a large amount of resource is available for the science budget is that the previous Conservative Government delivered the conditions in which the current Government have been able to spend.
	The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) emphasised that a broader membership of the research councils, with younger members and wider citizens' involvement, might be useful. He painted an idyllic picture of science cities and strongly approved of the enlarged science budget. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made some interesting observations on peer group review.
	The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) was very forceful in his comments. He said that the funding gap that has appeared is not worthy of his Government—a passionate and forceful statement. He also said it is impossible not to have a regional science policy. That has been mentioned to the Minister many times before, and I suspect that it will come up time and again until there is clarity. Rather than pushing a particular point of view, I simply urge the Minister to create that clarity.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said that what is required from the Minister is honesty in recognition of realities; I certainly agree with that sentiment. He referred to the potential breaching of the Haldane principle, with Ministers perhaps looking at draft plans and then new plans being submitted, and expressed concern that we have not had sight of that interaction.
	Finally, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) broadly welcomed the increase in financial resource available to the Minister to disburse, and pointed out that we are second in the world for citations, after the US, which is a great place for us to be.
	Despite some of the deep concerns and challenges facing UK science, I am nevertheless optimistic for the future. Amid the fears of job losses and budget cuts, I recently visited Daresbury science and innovation campus to see some of the innovative ways in which scientists and entrepreneurs were working together, and it was very encouraging. Just last month, I was at the Diamond Light Source project in Oxfordshire—a truly world-class facility that attracts scientific and commercial interest from across the globe, and I think that there are greater opportunities to realise some of that commercial interest in a more fruitful way in future.
	I remain optimistic for the future, not least because it is clear that hon. Members of all parties care deeply about the future of UK science. Admittedly, in part that may be because many of us have scientists living and working in our constituencies who face the prospect of redundancy, grant reductions or the withdrawal of facilities—although perhaps not to the extent that is occasionally portrayed in the media. To an even greater extent, I am optimistic because we understand the important role that science plays in society. At a time when science promises so many answers to some of the big questions, we must take care over decisions that might scale back important activity.
	In climate change, energy and food security, we look to scientists for answers. The taxpayer supports science in this country because of the benefits that accrue to the nation as a whole. But as the report of the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills has shown, a "poorly allocated" budget has forced damaging cuts that threaten the capacity and perhaps the international reputation of UK science. Despite increased investment for the Medical Research Council, among one or two others, everyone but the Government seems to agree that the science budget left the STFC with an £80 million shortfall. The Select Committee concluded that the Government must "demonstrate greater effectiveness" in the way it manages research in the UK, which is putting the point quite lightly, given the concern that the science budget has provoked.
	It will come as a relief to many that the STFC announced last week that it had balanced its budget. We now know that some of the high-profile facilities, such as ALICE—accelerators and lasers in combined experiments—at Daresbury and e-MERLIN at Jodrell Bank, may be safe. My first question to the minister is this: did he have a hand in saving those headline projects? Perhaps he can clear up that matter. Was he involved in the discussions before the press release was issued last week? Were he or his Department informed about the STFC announcements before they were made? If he was, there are more questions to be answered about what influence the Minister may have brought to bear.
	Despite the celebration about the saving of Jodrell Bank and one or two other headline facilities, we must not forget what will disappear, and I will quickly put some of those projects on the record. Astronomy has been hit quite hard. AstroGrid, which is developing an open-source eye on the sky, will lose funding. Support for the Birmingham Solar Oscillations Network and the Cambridge Astronomical Survey Unit will go. The STFC aims to sell 50 per cent. of the UK's observing time in Gemini. The UK's contribution to the Isaac Newton group of telescopes, described by the Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics Science Committee—PPAN—as a "valuable asset", will fall by half. There will be a withdrawal of support from the particle physics collaboration at Stanford university. Because of funding constraints, PPAN
	"reluctantly had to leave the project terminating rather abruptly, recognizing the loss of science this would incur".
	Perhaps what is more alarming is that with the settlement offered by the Government, the STFC has been forced to reduce the number of research grants over the coming spending review period. A statement from the STFC council reads:
	"Because of the funding cycle the number of"—
	post-doctoral research assistants—
	"in Nuclear Physics will be reduced by circa 22 per cent."
	In astronomy, the
	"STFC's published delivery plan envisages that the number of PDRA's supported in 2011 will be 11 per cent. below the 2005 level".
	The overall headline figure that the STFC gave for reductions in new commitments to research grants was 25 per cent. That means fewer astronomers, fewer particle physicists and fewer nuclear scientists. However, the Government appear to be contradicting the research councils. They said in their response to the report that
	"the level of rolling grants for particle physics will be unaffected until at least 2010—11."
	However, the STFC stated in its programmatic review that where specific programmes were cut,
	"the level of existing rolling grants"
	would be "reduced accordingly." Will the Minister explain how the level of rolling grants can be reduced and unaffected at the same time? That is a bit of a contradiction.
	One the one hand, we have a Prime Minister who says that we must push ahead with nuclear power; on the other hand, we are cutting back nuclear science to a certain degree through the STFC funding allocation. Such incoherence causes some concern. As Professor Hawking has said:
	"This bookkeeping error has disastrous implications...These grants are the lifeblood of our research effort; cutting them will hurt young researchers and cause enormous damage both to British science and to our international reputation."
	The Government did not make hay or fix the roof while the sun shone. We all know that they failed to make provision when the economy was doing well, and today the pressures on the public purse are many and varied. At a time when science promises solutions to many of our social and economic needs, Ministers cannot afford to bury their heads in the sand. What Professor Hawking described as a "bookkeeping error" has implications for scientists up and down the country.
	The recent crisis represents either departmental incompetence—missing the cuts that were self-evident in what was presented to it—or a deliberate decision to provide the research councils with less than was needed. Either way, the Minister has an opportunity today to be courageous. We have heard that word once or twice, and we have heard the call for transparency and openness. We have heard about the boldness and courage of former Science Ministers, who were very clear and open about what they were doing when there was a budget reduction. Will the Minister admit that there has been a shortfall in funding for the STFC and say that he accepts some responsibility?

Ian Pearson: I agree that, in all such cases, it is matter of balance. However, I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the Government are committed to investment in basic research. That underpins the later commercial exploitation of research. As he knows, we support some of that commercialisation and applied research and development through, for example, the Energy Technologies Institute and especially the activities of the Technology Strategy Board, which will spend, in co-ordination with the research councils and the regional development agencies, £1 billion in the next three years.

Ann Widdecombe: I am deeply grateful for this opportunity to raise this issue in the House tonight, and I look forward to the Minister's reply. The issue is about the refusal of primary care trusts up and down the country—but in particular my own PCT, West Kent—to fund the provision of Lucentis and Avastin for those who are losing their sight.
	The national health service exists especially to make sure that nobody loses the ability to function in the most normal way if that is possible. To see, to hear, to have some degree of movement—those are all essential to function normally. They are neither luxuries nor lifestyle changes, but are utterly basic and essential. I cannot believe that the founding fathers of the NHS ever foresaw the day when that same NHS, which seems to find money for a whole lot of things that some would consider desirable but not essential, could not find money for that which is essential.
	I am going to concentrate on two constituents' cases, about which the Minister has been notified. Neither constituent wishes to be named; I shall therefore refer to them as Mr. X and Miss Y.

Ann Widdecombe: I am pleased to see that the Minister agrees.
	Miss Y does not wish to be named because she is a frail lady of pensionable age who does not want an enormous amount of press publicity flowing around her. Mr. X does not wish to be named because he is working and his employer does not yet know of his difficulties. For understandable reasons, he does not wish his employer to become—possibly prematurely—alarmed.
	Miss Y is well known to me. She is a pillar of the Maidstone community and a lady with whom I have worked on many a charitable project. In particular, she has shown tremendous initiative in co-ordinating a charity that helps to teach children English in the Ukraine. She helped to start it, and it continues to this day. Needless to say, she is a lady of great responsibility who has saved all her life. She has her own very small and modest flat and had saved to ensure that she would be able to meet the rainy days of her retirement.
	I visited Miss Y at home and saw first hand the difficulties that she is now experiencing as her independence is snatched from her bit by bit because of a deterioration in her sight. She is losing the sight of both eyes. Members of the public often read the press and get the idea that there is a miracle cure and demand it, but what is crucial in this case is that her consultant recommended to her that she try Lucentis. She asked whether it would be funded. That was slightly before the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence decreed that the treatment would be licensed and she was advised that it would not be funded. Nevertheless, she applied. The consultant said that there was an urgency to her condition, so at the same time this pensioner lady began to pay from her savings for private treatment. That cost her well in excess of £5,000 but—and this is crucial—it has been effective. It has arrested what had been a steady decline and gives her not much but something by way of sight. That reminds me of a lady who stood up at a recent meeting I attended—not about this matter at all; it was a general charitable do—and said to me, "Miss Widdecombe, do you realise that the only reason I can see you tonight is because I have paid for it?"
	Under no circumstances should we have such a system. People have always had the ability to opt out of the NHS because they preferred private facilities, but on this occasion, we are building up a picture of people who do not opt out, but are driven out because the NHS will not supply that which enables them to do something as basic as see. When I took up this lady's case with the PCT, it wrote back that her visual acuity was "outside the accepted range", but that was because she had paid to ensure that it was.
	Let me come on to the case of Mr. X. He is not a pensioner; he is only 39. He has a family of five and both he and his wife work full time. He suffers from proliferative diabetic retinopathy, but combined with that, he also suffers from retinal vein occlusion. He is now losing his sight. The recommendation for Lucentis was again not made by him, but by his own consultant at Maidstone hospital as long ago as 2007. Mr. X was denied Lucentis.
	Mr. X, who naturally enough lives in Maidstone, has had to travel to Southport every six weeks to receive treatment. I am sure that the Minister's geography is more than up to working out the distance between Maidstone and Southport. The treatment costs £465 and the travel has to be paid on top. He has to take a day off work and, because his sight obviously limits his mobility, so, too, does his wife. They are supporting a family of five and they do not have the time to take off work. Mr. X is concerned for his future. He wants to go on working, but he cannot see that lasting for ever.
	When I wrote to the PCT, I said that
	"this man is too young to go blind"—
	as if there were ever a right age— and that
	"he needs assistance, and he needs it now".
	Such assistance has still been denied. The most recent development is the PCT writing to Mr. X to tell him that the appeal panel has deferred the decision. The letter was so cold that I actually wrote back to the PCT:
	"I have seen more sympathetic letters from motor mechanics".
	That, regrettably, is true, as there was no expression of sympathy and no hope for the future. Once again, a constituent has to pay to try to ensure that he gets what his consultant recommended in the first place.
	Very rarely, if at all, do I quote in this House anything to do with my other role as a columnist for the  Daily Express. I did, however, write about the provision of Lucentis when the newspaper was running a campaign on behalf of the war veteran, Jack Patch. As a result of the huge publicity, his PCT backed off and he is now getting his treatment, but I was flooded with letters from other Members' constituents expressing dismay that they were going blind and could not get the treatment funded, so had to pay for it themselves to avoid going blind.
	As the Minister well knows, if people are allowed to go blind, the costs to the state are horrendous. Mr. X will cease work, so he will not be productive from the age of 39 to 65 when he otherwise would have been. He will require benefits, and he will get them, as he will qualify for them. He will require all manner of additional care, and it will be forthcoming. Therefore, it does not even make economic sense to let people go blind instead of ensuring that they retain their sight for as long as possible.
	To go off track—I do not expect the Minister to answer this point—I recently read of a lady who went progressively deaf and who has a young child. She was told that a cochlear implant would solve the problem, but that her PCT would not fund the admittedly considerable cost of such an operation. In a 21st century health service, we have people who are not enabled to see, and people who are not enabled to hear—I reckon Nye Bevan is probably turning in his grave.
	Many years ago, when I was shadowing one of the Minister's predecessors, I predicted that NICE would turn out to be extremely nasty. That is what NICE has turned out to be—very nasty indeed. We are talking about real people, whose illnesses are real. The solutions have been proposed by consultants, not witch doctors, and yet they cannot get help. Will the Minister consider urgently what can be done for people such as the two constituents in different situations whom I have mentioned, and for all those others whom I am not directly representing tonight?

Ann Keen: I will check on that. I believe that the strategic health authority confirmed that Miss Y had not paid for Lucentis but had paid for Avastin.
	The guidance advises NHS organisations that until NICE has published final guidance on a treatment, they should continue with local arrangements for introducing new technologies, based on an assessment of the available evidence. The guidance also identifies potential sources of information to help PCTs to make such assessments.
	When the local NHS decides not to fund a treatment, the patient and the clinician can expect an explanation. To underpin that, the Government will require PCTs to establish clear and very transparent arrangements both for local decision making on the funding of new drugs and for consideration of exceptional funding requests, and to publish information on those arrangements. That is laid down in the draft constitution which we published last week.
	Lucentis and Macugen are licensed treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration. Doctors can prescribe Macugen or Lucentis in advance of NICE guidance if they believe that it is the right treatment for their patients, subject to funding from the PCT. When Lucentis was licensed in January 2007, services for people in West Kent with wet age-related macular degeneration were commissioned by the south east coast specialised commissioning group. To ensure equitable access for all patients on the south-east coast, the group commissioned the local health policy support unit's policy recommendation committee to give guidance to commissioners on the most cost-effective delivery.
	Owing to the significant differences between preliminary NICE guidance issued for consultation in June 2007 and the policy recommendation committee's guidance, a review of both guidelines was undertaken by the south east coast specialised commissioning group. The group recommended the use of Lucentis rather than Macugen, while maintaining the previous eligibility criteria.
	In the last few minutes of my speech, I want to concentrate on the right hon. Lady's constituents, Mr. X and Miss Y. I am totally sympathetic to the concerns that the right hon. Lady has raised about those two specific cases. I have been assured by South East Coast strategic health authority that such cases are considered by individual treatment panels, which always have at least one member who is a clinician. Each case is considered on its merits, and without setting precedents for future claims. Treatments may be inside or outside the national health service.
	Individual treatment panels were established in West Kent in consultation with all health community partners, primarily to consider funding for treatments for named individuals owing to their exceptional clinical circumstances and exceptions for treatments excluded by the PCT's clinical policies. West Kent PCT confirmed today that the individual treatment panel would reconsider the case of the constituent referred to as Miss Y, and would write to her and her consultant once the panel had reached a decision.
	I am exceptionally sorry that Miss Y has had to go through this trauma, which must have been very stressful for someone such as the lady whom the right hon. Lady has described. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising the case with me; I am only sorry that she had to do so in this way.
	In the case of Mr. X, I have this afternoon been reassured by South East Coast SHA that it will ensure that Mr. X has the opportunity now to meet with the PCT decision makers and his specialist so that they can explain the rationale for the decision. It will also ensure that a specialist provides reassurance about the recommended treatment for his condition. I am led to believe that there is concern about the recommended treatment for the condition. Therefore, I would expect any patient to be reassured and to have a lot of support and guidance about possible future treatment, and not, of course, to receive a letter.
	I understand West Kent PCT's position is that while it is sympathetic to the distress and anxiety of people within its area, it cannot fund an unlicensed and unapproved treatment when an effective and nationally recognised alternative for a condition is available, but the management of such communication is essential and I would have expected better from today's NHS.
	West Kent PCT, like every PCT, has a duty to ensure that best possible use is made of taxpayers' money to meet the health needs of its whole population. Decisions about individual cases must be based on all available evidence. The right hon. Lady would respect such decisions. It is the management of decision making that has caused distress to a young man with a young family.
	I hope that I have been able to set out the importance of having a properly evidence-based approach to the introduction of new treatments, but how we communicate about new treatments and their management is important. If at any time the right hon. Lady feels that Mr. X and Miss Y are not receiving what I have stated tonight, I will willingly meet with her and take an interest in both cases. I wish both of her constituents well with their future treatment.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.